Originally posted by notto
There are various structures, artifacts, and evidence throughout the layers that cannot be formed by a short, massive flood that caused all of the layers at once.
Things such as:
Egg nests in large nesting grounds with many seasonal layers
Termite and Ant colonies
Footprints
Root Layers at various levels
Dung that is still in its original location and shape
Animal burrows
Remains of animals that clearly died of something other than a flood and are still in their original resting place with evidence of how they died around them
These cannot be exlained by a flood.
I'd like to add to this list those things that do not have a biological origin which cannot be explained by the flood as well. There are geologic structures which falsify the notion that the stratigraphic record is a record of the global flooding event depicted in the Bible. For example: preserved mud cracks, angular unconformities, overturned beds, volcanic ash layers, flood basalts, large-scale cross bedding, etc.
The question I've never seen answered by those who believe the Biblical flood took place on a global scale (one of several) is whether the entire stratigraphic record is a result of the flood or not. If it is representative of such a flood, there are plenty of geologic and biogenic features in the rock record that cannot be explained by such an event. Furthermore, all of the sediments (and other features such as igneous intrusions) are not marine in origin. There are sediments deposited by wind, rivers, glaciers, etc.
If the entire record is not a result of this flood, then why not point out the stratum or sequence of strata that represent the flood and what evidence has been collected that supports that this stratum/sequence of strata was a result of a global flooding event? Furthermore, the dating issue has to be resolved as well. That is to say, this stratum/sequence of strata must have evidence to show that it was deposited somewhere in the neighborhood of ~4000 years before present to be consistent with what appears to be presented as the Biblical model. If this is the case, it should be relatively easy to show considering it would be a feature seen globally at the same stratigraphic level (and thus same date), and in addition, it should be easy to show considering it should have occured relatively very recently in Earth's history and should be well preserved.
Since geologic evidence which falsifies the hypothesis that a global flooding event occurred which created the entire sedimentary record and corresponding fossil record, and since proponents of the hypothesis that the entire record is not a result of the flood cannot provide any evidence of a global flooding event when one should have occurred according to the Biblical model, it's pretty safe to say, in my opinion, that the global flood model is invalid. After all, there isn't even a source for enough water for such an event.
